Adicionar receita

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that data is persisted to data/receitas.json and that the operation fails if the id already exists, which are important side-effect and error conditions. However, it does not mention success behavior, return values, or any permissions/authorization requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The primary action verb 'Cadastra' appears first, and the additional sentence efficiently communicates the key failure condition. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a creation operation with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only the core function and one error condition. It fails to convey essential context such as required vs. optional fields, default values for optional parameters, array structure for ingredientes/modoPreparo, or what happens on success. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level semantics. It does not mention any of the 12 parameters, their formats, defaults, or relationships. The parameter names (e.g., titulo, ingredientes) are somewhat self-explanatory for a recipe domain, but the description itself provides no clarification or additional context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Cadastra uma nova receita' (Registers a new recipe), which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_receitas, buscar_receita, remover_receita, and sugerir_por_ingredientes, ensuring no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when a new recipe needs to be added, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The note that it fails if the id already exists offers some situational guidance, but no alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance remains implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.